Digital Forensics Controversy

The stop and frisk procedure is known to be more used toward those of the African American, Latino and minority races rather than those of the Caucasian race. A person is protected from unreasonable search and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. Many contested

Every day people walk down the street of New York wondering if they are going to be stopped. Paul Butler a law professor at Georgetown University and a former United States Department of Justice prosecutor says that “the problem with stop and frisk is not only that it makes the citizens of New York less free, it also makes them less safe” (Butler, 2012). This brings the feeling of the people in New York to light, as they feel like they are less than others and less free with the ability to them being stopped and searched whenever an officer has a suspicion. Not all officers have the right sense in mind when it comes to their suspicion about someone, because “according to the analysis, just 1.5% of all stop-and-frisk arrests resulted in a jail or prison sentence. Just one in 50 stop-and-frisk arrests, 0.1%, led to a conviction for a violent crime or possession of a weapon. Close to half of all stop-and-frisk arrests did not result in a conviction” (Lee, 2013). The percentages show that officers’ suspicions aren’t always correct and that they may use their own stereotype about someone when they stop and frisk. This policy is ineffective because they don’t have a 100 percent on catching people, and many times officers’ own opinions on someone gets in the way. This policy is kept around for the little percentage it has worked and to give the officers an option to do a stop and frisk if they feel necessary. If this policy

As crime rates rise, police must come up with new methods to counteract these increases. Many of these methods come with pros and cons that may affect the way the public views Police officers and law enforcement in general. Some of these methods may seem like a violation to people’s rights, even though they may be constitutional. One of these methods known as Stop and Frisk is one of the most widely debated topics in America when it comes to dealing with Police actions and Constitutional rights.

There has always been tension raised between maintaining a safe society and observing by the constitutional rights of its citizens. The New York City aggressive program of Stop and Frisk have been widely criticized and considered unconstitutional. However, Stop and Frisk, per se is not unconstitutional unless people are being stopped illegally. It 's a crime prevention tool that allows police officers to stop a person based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and to conduct a frisk based on reasonable suspicion that the person is armed. Some argue this policy was created to target minorities. Most of the people who have been stopped and frisked under this program have been African American or Hispanic. This concerns citizens and makes them oppose the policy because they believe its racial profiling and guided by color. Stop and frisk is now one of the biggest controversies in United States. It has become something that is affecting society in both a positive and negative way.

I believe my argument was compelling, and should sway Board members toward investing in the development of a forensic lab. The biggest difference between corporate investigation and law enforcement investigation is the individual leading the charge. Dedicated forensic specialists can recover evidences across multiple platforms and work within the guidelines of forensic laws to unearth the truth. Public law should provide the blueprint to which organization create company policy. During an investigation, forensic specialist must follow federal, state and city statue; while adhering to company mandate. In closing, presenting facts in a professional manner carries as much weight as the fact-finding

New York’s Stop and Frisk laws started in 2004, heightening racial profiling in the criminal justice system. Law enforcement supports these discriminatory acts by stating the population will benefit from New York’s Stop and Frisk, because the government will stop the crimes before they are committed. These stops are still denoted unconstitutional by the people. The government supports stop and frisk built on the fact that the new law stops crime however, it does not. Today, people are afraid of strolling along in their city due to the potential of unlawfully being searched based on the opinion of an officer assuming they look “suspicious”. Therefore, by comparing data presented by the NYPD with the notion of utter discrimination and

The NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, illegal stops and privacy rights. The Department’s own reports on its stop and frisk activity confirm what many people in communities of color across the city have long known: The police are stopping hundreds of thousands of law abiding New Yorkers every year, and the vast majority are black and Latino. In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times. 605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent). 350,743 were black (53 percent). 223,740

Stop and Frisk laws have been a statistically proven means of crime prevention across America as a whole. Still, ever since their creation, Stop and Frisk laws have been a major source of controversy in America. The constitutionality of Stop and Frisk laws was confirmed in the 1968 case of Terry vs Ohio and since then, crime levels across America have been at historic lows. Yet, the 2013 verdict of the class action lawsuit, Floyd v. City of New York has ruled otherwise. The court found the NYPD of violating both the fourth and fourteenth amendment mostly on the grounds of racial profiling. The court has as a result put in place a serious of complex changes to these laws making the job as a police officer even more dangerous than it already was. The topic of “racial profiling” is the fuel to the majority of the arguments opposing Stop and frisk. However, the subject of racial profiling is vastly misconstrued and deeply misunderstood. Stop and Frisk laws have flaws and are not perfect by any means, nevertheless they are an imperative source of preventing crime in America that needs to continue.

The practice of ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ in New York, by the federal courts, has been found unconstitutional not because of the actual process once the person was stopped, but because of the way they were targeting based on race with little to no reason. When you look at the racial breakdown of Stop-and-Frisk targets in New York from 2003-2015, consistently fifty percent (50%) or more were black (Bump) yet blacks make up twenty-five percent (25%) of the population (Matthews). White was not even a category as it was comprised in ‘other’. Latino was the only other category which comprised about twenty-five percent (25%) (Bump). Blacks make up twenty-five percent (25%) of the population in New York. In Pittsburgh, a city similar to New York, it was found that in traffic stops, black men are eight percent (8%) more likely to be frisked and the grounds on being frisked are if the officer thinks there maybe be criminal activity (Ryan). Again, it is a hundred percent (100%) up to the officer whether a frisk in this case happens. The problem is how objective are police officers when stopping African Americans, specifically men, if statistically speaking they are stopped disproportionately.

The Stop and Frisk policy is practiced in New York City and it involves a police officer stopping a potential suspect then they proceed to ask the person questions and/or pat them down. 84% of these stops recorded are young men typically of African American and Hispanic heritage. However, only 6% of these stops lead to an arrest. Many of these men are only being stopped because of the color of their skin, not because the police think they are suspicious of something. These statistics are leading people to accuse the police of racial profiling, and the abuse of privacy rights which has also led to a class action lawsuit. Even though these are the people who live in high crime areas, race doesn't

Racial profiling is an example of police brutality, which is defined by Gross and Livingston (2002) as “the practice of some officers of stopping motorists of certain racial or ethnic groups because the officer believe that these groups are more likely than others to commit certain types of crimes” (p.1413). Therefore, individuals are treated unfairly by law enforcement solely based on their race. This type of mistreatment is unmerited and ultimately a violation of an individual’s rights. However, in many instances the courts do not find it a violation of their civil rights based on the fact that racial profiling is difficult to prove. Often, prosecutors are disinclined in bringing forth a case against officers on this particular matter. Officers are permitted to stop and search individuals and their vehicles whenever there is reasonable suspicion, however, there has been studies that prove that some law enforcement officers restrict these rights primarily to minority groups. Bowling and Phillips found that although there was no formal monitoring of use of these powers, it was concluded that it was particularly heavy use of these powers against ethnic minorities, largely of young black people (as cited in Sharp & Atherton, 2007, p. 747) . In several cases, officers argue that they reasonably pulled an individual over for other probable grounds such as: traffic violations, suspicious behavior, etc., with race never being an

Stop and frisk main objective is to stop and cease control of illegal weapons and contraband. It’s not there to harass and make the community scared. So, the questions are why stop and keep harassing the people of color? Why aren’t the stops done equally? Is there a certain quota that is supposed to be met by these officers? There’s a lot of questions that are asked and that need answer’s. People of color should not have to live their life in fear because the justice system wants to bother these people for no reason, or just to make a certain quota so they can be

While advancements in technology are continuously on the rise, so are the concerns of how they will affect the privacy the fourth amendment protects. The question of how modern technology will violate the natural rights of the people can not only be asked by society, but also by law enforcement officials. Officers would have to distinguish the surveillance techniques that contravene the law of privacy from those that do not. In the case Kyllo v. United States (2001), the police used a thermal scanner to read the heat signatures given off by Kyllo’s house. Their intent was to find abnormal heat patterns, search the home, and therefore confirm their suspicions of marijuana growth. While they were successful in finding illegal activities being

stop and frisk is the practice of when a police man has the right to stop and search anybody not matter what race they are base on their instinct. stop and frisk was made legal in new york state. stop and frisk made headline news, of the way the people of new york are been protected. for the first few months it sounded like a good idea, because nobody knew what people around them are carrying, if they look suspicious the new york state police have the right to stop them. later on the citizen of new york started to see a pardon on the race group the new york state police pick on the most, the new york state police mostly target hispanic, arabic and black. they target hispanic and black race because they think all black and hispanic

Digital Forensics is a field of computer science that aids in determining what may or may not have occurred during some computer task. The bit-by-bit concept satisfies computer media, it does not apply to smartphones. Two experiments were designed using three devices; Android HTC Aria, Apple iPhone 3G, and Windows Mobile HTC TouchPro 6850. These experiments will compare and contrast the device by carrier, manufacturer, file size by category, file size by test, and folder size. These types of experiments will create a baseline for change in specific model smartphones depending on the specific user function performed. If such a baseline is determined, one may be able to prove that a set of tasks occurred given the current state of the device.